United States v. Anthony Cameron

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4806

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

ANTHONY WAYNE CAMERON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:95-cr-00266-JAB-2)

Submitted: April 13, 2015 Decided: April 17, 2015

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Anthony Wayne Cameron appeals his sentence of 51 months’

imprisonment imposed by the district court upon revocation of

his supervised release. On appeal, Cameron’s counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but

raising as a potential issue whether the district court properly

sentenced Cameron. Although notified of his right to do so,

Cameron has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a

sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United States

v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). A revocation

sentence that “is within the statutory maximum and is not

‘plainly unreasonable’” will be affirmed on appeal. Id.

(quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir.

2006)). In so evaluating a sentence, we assess it for

reasonableness, utilizing “the procedural and substantive

considerations” employed in evaluating an original criminal

sentence. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438.

A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the

district court has considered the policy statements contained in

Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)

(2012). Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. The district court also must

2
provide an explanation for its chosen sentence, but the

explanation “need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a

revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a post-

conviction sentence.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544,

547 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is substantively

reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for

concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence

imposed. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. Only if we find a sentence

to be procedurally or substantively unreasonable will we

determine whether the sentence is “plainly” so. Id. at 439.

Here, the district court properly considered the arguments

from counsel, allocution from Cameron, the statutory maximum

sentences upon revocation, and the § 3553(a) factors enumerated

in § 3583(e) before sentencing Cameron at the bottom of the

policy statement range. While the district court’s explanation

for its sentence was not lengthy, it provided a sentence

tailored to Cameron, focusing specifically on the nature and

circumstances of his violations of supervised release. We

therefore conclude that Cameron’s sentence is neither

procedurally nor substantively unreasonable and, therefore, is

not plainly so.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in

this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment revoking

3
supervised release. This court requires that counsel inform

Cameron, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court

of the United States for further review. If Cameron requests

that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a

petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court

for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion

must state that a copy thereof was served on Cameron.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED